3 ms·

It is so hard for media mastheads to build and maintain trust, and so easy to destroy that trust which can then take years to rebuild. Many people still operat

It is so hard for media mastheads to build and maintain trust, and so easy to destroy that trust which can then take years to rebuild. Many people still operate on the last century paradigm of a few 'trusted' impartial news sources 'telling it like it is'. Once these huge organizations lose credibility we find ourselves in the situation Soviet union era citizens were in with the official party organ Pravda - not believing a word of the official line and reading between the lines for clues...

whimsicalism 6y ago
I think that these "impartial organizations" have always had some credibility issues (although it has accelerated with journalism's decline). The democratization of information brought by social media has led to the "fake news" epidemic, but has also allowed smart people to coordinate and discover instances where these organizations are lying, whereas in the past it would take years to come to light.
ttesttom 6y ago
I think we do have those organizations with trust. If you want facts only news, go to apnews or reuters. They are the mastheads of impartiality, or at least as much as possible with humans. However, the NYT is what I consider as investigative journalism that includes informed speculation. A lot of stories that otherwise never would have seen the light of day were broken by the NYT, however at the time of publishing there was a degree of uncertainty given the nature of the story. The uncertainty means they could be wrong, even if the odds are high at 90% correct. However, I would argue both are valuable, just understand which you are reading.
- olivermarks 6y ago
  I'd suggest apnews & reuters have lost much impartiality credibility, resulting in the rise of populism. We have Trump & Sanders as a result over the last ten years and a vacuum where a reliable trusted and impartial media should be.

whimsicalism 6y ago

I think that these "impartial organizations" have always had some credibility issues (although it has accelerated with journalism's decline). The democratization of information brought by social media has led to the "fake news" epidemic, but has also allowed smart people to coordinate and discover instances where these organizations are lying, whereas in the past it would take years to come to light.

ttesttom 6y ago

I think we do have those organizations with trust. If you want facts only news, go to apnews or reuters. They are the mastheads of impartiality, or at least as much as possible with humans. However, the NYT is what I consider as investigative journalism that includes informed speculation. A lot of stories that otherwise never would have seen the light of day were broken by the NYT, however at the time of publishing there was a degree of uncertainty given the nature of the story. The uncertainty means they could be wrong, even if the odds are high at 90% correct. However, I would argue both are valuable, just understand which you are reading.

olivermarks 6y ago
I'd suggest apnews & reuters have lost much impartiality credibility, resulting in the rise of populism. We have Trump & Sanders as a result over the last ten years and a vacuum where a reliable trusted and impartial media should be.